Mother sues son she abandoned

When Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn’t want him anymore.

Ken’s father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province’s Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking her second-youngest son, Darryl, with her.

Ken was left behind.

Ken had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas, lucky to pick up some shifts at the local gas station to make a buck….

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.

Shirley Anderson, now 71, is suing Ken and four of his five siblings for parental support. The case dragged on for years, but the August hearing should complete it….

Something is amiss in this case. Ken Anderson should have launched a counter-suit to claim compensation for damages caused by the criminal act of child-abandonment by his mother. That could truly make some lawyers happy. They would be able to reap at least twice the profits they stand to gain from this case.

As it stands right now, who can blame the mother for merely seeking with impunity what is rightfully hers: to be rewarded by her victims for the crimes she committed against them. Of course, if it weren’t for ruthless lawyers who stand to profit from such cases, Shirley Anderson’s gold-digging would never have come close to the judicial arena.

How did you guys happen to miss charging this woman with child abandonment? Now come on, this is the part where you tell me it was in the children’s best interest: right?

Or are the rules different if it’s a boy-child?

Your maintenance enforcement goons would have chased the father to hell and back for the good of the children, right? Smells like another political desision.

just another refugee from canuckistan

allan chinnery

Comments are closed.

Search for:

Subscribing and logging-in: Disabled

Recipient of the O2/Symantec Recognition Award

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blogs are being slandered and censored.
Whether you are a fathers-rights activist, a pro-family activist or a skeptic of environmental alarmism, it is quite likely that your website or blog is being slandered and censored, too. It is being done on the sly. No one will tell you about it. If it happened, you will have been found guilty and were sentenced in the Star-Chamber court of a multinational corporation (by an obscure clerk, in an obscure office), and it is not likely that you will be able to appeal.
Check the rating of your website or blog.
I had asked O2 to review and explain their website rating policy in regard to Fathers for Life. They did not respond.